Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action

By JOHN BRESNAHAN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 3/19/11 4:27 PM EDT

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President ####### Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

(Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)

U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.

Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.

“Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members.”

The unrest among Hill Democrat resembles, in part, the debates inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department over the last few weeks as the Libyan crisis has unfolded.

The White House has worked to put out a narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as initially opposed to any involvement in a Libyan campaign, with a major change in the president’s viewpoint developing over the course of the last week as Qadhafi loyalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and a humanitarian crisis appeared inevitable.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates led administration opponents of any U.S. role in the anti-Qadhafi operation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed calls from the French and British governments for a NATO-led effort to assist the Libyan rebels. The Clinton clique eventually prevailed in the debate, and Clinton then worked with U.S. allies to craft a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the mission.

The Security Council then approved a resolution on Friday authorizing a “no-fly zone” for portions of Libya controlled by anti-Qadhafi rebels, as well as “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,” according to a U.N. statement.

With U.S. attacks already being launched, it was unclear what, if anything, Democratic opponents of the Libyan campaign could actually do to stop it. They could try to offer an amendment for under the 1973 War Powers Act, which would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from any conflict within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval, although it is unlikely that pass.

They could also seek to cut off funding for any extended military effort, although it is unclear how long or what the White House anticipates the cost of the operation could be.

Kucinich’s call to explore the impeachment question “got no support from anyone else on the call,” said another Democrat.

Yet there is growing unhappiness within Democratic ranks on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict, and with Obama gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, he will need the backing of liberal and progressive factions within his party — already disenchanted over some of the president’s fiscal and tax policies — in order to defeat any Republican challenger.

Recent opinion polls show the American public is also tiring of the Afghan war. On Thursday, 85 House Democrats — and eight Republicans — backed a Kucinich resolution calling for removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Dec. 31.

A total of 321 House members, including Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), opposed the Kucinich measure.

On the Senate side, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered a similar resolution, but so far, it has only garnered three cosponsors.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595_Page2.html#ixzz1HCr3IDph

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Kucinich is to the Democrat party, what Ron Paul is to the Republican party.

Nothing will of of this and everyone will ignore him, of course.

They'll find a way in the media and the caucus to 'agree' that what Obama did was necessary. I mean after all, it's in the 'best interest' of the party.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President ####### Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

His point is well taken - what kind of limitations are there on a President as to what kinds of military actions are taken short of a declaration of war, which is constitutionally the responsibility of Congress? That said, the No-Fly Zone was a U.N. resolution backed by the Arab League. The U.N. doesn't have it's own military to enforce such resolution and must therefore rely on its members to contribute.

[Zero Sum 305]

Awesome, thanks for sharing. I'm sure Fox News hasn't shared this yet.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a murky area to be sure. Though this article rather proves there's more diversity of thought on this issue than some posters with their inspector dreyfuss mad eye rants are willing to believe.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's a murky area to be sure. Though this article rather proves there's more diversity of thought on this issue than some posters with their inspector dreyfuss mad eye rants are willing to believe.

Or it may be that there are some honorable democrats that stand on their beliefs rather than partisan loyalties.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Awesome, thanks for sharing. I'm sure Fox News hasn't shared this yet.

so you're ok with the POTUS issuing an order to drop bombs on random countries?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or it may be that there are some honorable democrats that stand on their beliefs rather than partisan loyalties.

I'm sure they believe that.

[Zero Sum 305]

It's a murky area to be sure. Though this article rather proves there's more diversity of thought on this issue than some posters with their inspector dreyfuss mad eye rants are willing to believe.

Inspector Dreyfus Mad Eye.

Or it may be that there are some honorable democrats that stand on their beliefs rather than partisan loyalties.

That could be it too. Something I am sure the "Attack Obama at all cost on any issue" crowd won't mind trying to exploit. Which is quite obviously partisan too.

so you're ok with the POTUS issuing an order to drop bombs on random countries?

I believe there is a context here that you are purposefully missing. Maybe care to substantiate the random nature of the UN-led mission to Libya? Of course not.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I believe there is a context here that you are purposefully missing. Maybe care to substantiate the random nature of the UN-led mission to Libya? Of course not.

What context am I missing?

The UN and the US are two different entities.

The UN can make a decision all it wants to and the nations are free to do what they want as members of the UN.

However, the POTUS cannot just take military action on a nation we are not at war with, without congressional approval. This is why we have emergency sessions if need be.

over 100 missiles authorized like they were in a nation that's in the middle of a semi civil war? It's questionable. Very questionable, especially figuring the corporate interests (Big Oil) that are at stake.

[Zero Sum 305]

What context am I missing?

The UN and the US are two different entities.

The UN can make a decision all it wants to and the nations are free to do what they want as members of the UN.

However, the POTUS cannot just take military action on a nation we are not at war with, without congressional approval. This is why we have emergency sessions if need be.

over 100 missiles authorized like they were in a nation that's in the middle of a semi civil war? It's questionable. Very questionable, especially figuring the corporate interests (Big Oil) that are at stake.

For a start, as per your own silly words, Libya is not a random country and the UN nor the US, tend to drop bombs on random targets. Be a little more specific in customizing your rants.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

For a start, as per your own silly words, Libya is not a random country and the UN nor the US, tend to drop bombs on random targets. Be a little more specific in customizing your rants.

I seriously don't know if you're being facetious or if you're just playing dumb.

Libya as far as concerned for the Western world, is a random nation that we are not meddling in their affairs.

Again, the POTUS acted without congressional authorization. That is the point that is being made in the article and a very serious thing at that.

[Zero Sum 305]

I seriously don't know if you're being facetious or if you're just playing dumb.

Libya as far as concerned for the Western world, is a random nation that we are not meddling in their affairs.

Again, the POTUS acted without congressional authorization. That is the point that is being made in the article and a very serious thing at that.

You should know- it was your random words that I quoted.

If you have viewing and listening problems as per the newscasts that have dominated the international news as of the last couple of weeks coming out of North Africa, that is a problem that you may want resolved on your own.

But I will grant you one small favor on the actual issue you bring up (congressional approval). I believe the President should act with unanimous congressional approval before dedicating any of our armed services to foreign conflicts, in line with the functions of the Commander in Chief. For this to ring true, Congress should also resort to being more communicative as a whole (not just by its internal committees) with the President about courses of action to take, instead of trying to rack up political hack points.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Or it may be that there are some honorable democrats that stand on their beliefs rather than partisan loyalties.

What is the position of Democrats regarding military intervention? And no, I'm not asking your opinion of what that position, but an actual officially stated position to which you believe the party is now betraying?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Inspector Dreyfus Mad Eye.

That could be it too. Something I am sure the "Attack Obama at all cost on any issue" crowd won't mind trying to exploit. Which is quite obviously partisan too.

I believe there is a context here that you are purposefully missing. Maybe care to substantiate the random nature of the UN-led mission to Libya? Of course not.

Why do you think the West decided to bomb Libya ?